The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the extended Ultra Low Emission Zone is unfair to motorists like him. This is because an investigation would not achieve the outcome Mr B seeks.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Authority extended the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without considering people such as himself, who use their car very rarely and live just inside the Greater London boundary. Mr B says it is unfair to expect him to pay the daily charge of £12.50 on the rare occasions he drives his classic car out of London. Mr B would like the Authority to remove the ULEZ cameras from low congestion areas.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide: we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
It was the Authority’s decision to extend the ULEZ scheme and it was for the Authority to decide how this scheme extension would operate. Mr B complains this scheme is unfair to motorists like him who live close to the edge of Greater London and rarely use their vehicles.
But, it was for the Authority to decide how this scheme would work and the courts have found this scheme was lawfully introduced. It is not our role to tell the Authority it should operate this scheme differently.
So, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve the outcome Mr B seeks.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because an investigation would not achieve the outcome Mr B seeks.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman